f america's people. that's why five years ago we worked so hard to make wall street reform the law of the land and that's why today tomorrow, and far into the future we will work hard to keep this law strong, both in statute and in practice. thank you very much. pleasure to be with you here today. [applause] >> thank you very much, secretary lew. please stay in your seats until the secretary left. thank you all for attending and those on c-span for watching. vice-president our web site regularly to stay on top of financial reform and making markets work better for everyone. and don't forget, if you're in the audience, take your copy of the report, and if you're watching on tv it's at our web site better markets.com. where all the other information is too. thank you very much. this concludes our program.

>> here's what is ahead on c-span2. first up, the community indicators with gordon crovitz then jeb bush outlines his priorities for reducing government spending, reforming veterans affairs and improving the economy. later we hear about presidential candidates' disclose shower's the federal elections commission. and from the cato institute a discussion on the rise of synthetic or designer drugs. >> host: gordon crovitz, what too you write about in your "wall street journal" column? sunny try to support the

newspaper's position on free people and free markets in the 'ers of technology and particularly around the internet and innovation. >> host: how did you get that assignment. >> guest: i've been with "the wall street journal" for many years, publisher of "the wall street journal." i spent quite some time overseeing the digital businesses of the journal. i consider myself in fact maybe the oldest possible digital native. i oversaw businesses that were based on what we then called electronic publishing, even before the internet, in the 1990s. so i lived in a time before the internet before technology poll policy was aimed as encouraging innovation back in the '80s and '90s and before. government was heavily involved in regulating communications, telephones other technologies. the internet was different in the 1990s. it was liberating. it was permission-less.

it vas very little government regulation. we're all beneficiaries of that and my column tries to identify areas where we may be backsliding or where we may be suppressing innovation, or not making the most of this extraordinary opportunity. >> host: well, you have written that washington is a disaster area for innovation. why do you write that? >> guest: i think if you go back to earlier technology, like railroads and the ma bell telephone monopoly, those are regulated as common carriers, regulators set prices, they set terms, they set rules and we all know what happened. there was very little innovation in railroads and the trucking and in telephones until they were all deregulate, and all those common carrier constitutes

un -- statutes up done by congress when it was so clear that innovation was being suppressed and the u.s. was falling behind in its competitiveness. that was the backdrop for the bipartisan consensus in the 1990s the internet would be different. this was during the clinton administration. a clear consensus democrats and republicans, that unlike this earlier technologies, the internet was going to be largely unregulated. permissionless. anybody could launch a web site, anybody could launch an app. the government wouldn't get into deciding what prices were reasonable or not reasonable. what innovations could be used or not used. there would be no regulation of content, unlike traditional television broadcasting. for example with the fairness doctrine. up of those rules were going to apply to the internet. in the last couple of years we have seen a significant erosion

of that bipartisan consensus that is undermining the internet as a source of permissionless innovation. that's why i often write about washington which is a bit eye ron yankee. at the beginning of the internet in 1990s silicon valley was culturally committed to trying to stay as far away from washington and regulation as it could, having seen what happened to earlier technology. and sometimes i think even people in silicon valley forget our lucky they are to be operating still largely in an area where innovation is allowed to happen without in most cases, government's involvement. >> host: well, let's talk about some of those issues and let's talk about one of the big ones on the table net neutrality. the new rules put in place. you say that this will end the internet as we know it. >> guest: since the beginning of the internet there's been this concept of permissionless

innovation. people have been allowed to do what they like on the internet without government involvement. what we now have, and this is just begun quite recently -- the fcc is treating the internet, large areas of the internet, as if it were a 19 them century railroad or he 20th century ma bell monopoly. the fcc with ruled that just recently went into effect will be asked to decide whether prices are fair and reasonable, whether business practices are fair and reasonable. this goes under the rubric of net neutralil but really about government regulation and enables companies to lobby regulatears for special treatment to intervene in the market to have regulators second-guess what are now fairly standard business practices. i look back at the beginning of the internet. if the internet had been regulated as a utility under

what is now called title ii, at the beginning of the speaker -- enter next newspapers would have octobered to the idea of news publishers who are making their news available for to on the internet. they might have complained that was unfair. news is not free service. how could these new startups not charge for access? and so there are many areas of business where the fact that there are no regulations have, have not been regulations in the past have allowed for innovation and for consumers all of us, to benefit. let's take google. google essentially is a massive disrupter to the old farced yellow pages business. people used to have to use the yellow pages to find a local plumber or service or product.

essentially we all now use goggle. i the fcc had had this rules now in effect, the yellow page companies could have complained that the pricing approach and the practices of google at the very beginning of the internet were unfair and unreasonable, and they certainly disrupted the yellow page business. all of us benefited from that, but history of regulation is if there are regulations companies will do their best to use them to give themselves competitive advantage, and we are just at the beginning of seeing how this will now play out with the fcc the rules only just recently went into effect. we're already seeing cases being prepared and filed and we'll see whether this fcc decides to set rates or regulations. the president obama and tom wheeler, head of the fcc have

said this is not about regulation but the law requires the fcc to consider complaints about regulation and other issues having to do with practices on the internet. >> host: you have written about one case that has already been foiled, where -- filed where the litigant said that the regulationed rate should be zero. >> guest: one of the big issues on the internet service is lite netflix and youtube which of course transmit video on the internet, at peek times account for more than half of the traffic on broadband. that particular case involved another provider of video. it wants its video to be delivered essentially for free. that is to set a rate of zero. and that case will now wind

through the system. the fcc will have to decide whether to act or to not act but for the first time, the doors now are open to companies to lobby at the fcc to have business terms reconsidered. the irony is one of the companies that was quite active in supporting this new approach to regulation was netflix. netflix thought i think at least at the beginning of its lobbying process, that this would only affect isps. the verizons and others of the world. that's not necessarily true. a come pelt for to netflix, for example, could complain that netflix itself has fast lanes has preferred distribution opportunities on the internet, because it's built its own content delivery network. it's built its own fast lanes-as has youtube. it's a good thing that netflix and youtube did build their own

fast lanes otherwise it would slow down traffic for all the rest of us. but net neutrality was lobbied for and advocated by lobbying groups in washington on the ground there shouldn't be fast lanes. the internet cannot possibly function without fast lanes so it's now -- we're now at the point where we have to see which fast lane regulators think are okay and which ones they think are not okay. >> host: are we approaching internet 3.0, 4.0 with the build ago the extra fast lanes? >> guest: well, i think the demand for broadband continues to grow enormously. i don't know if we're in 3.0 or 4.0. i think it's still early days. the technology of the internet and broadband is less than a generation old. people are finding new yous for

braun all the time. new business models, new services. every day there are in innovations that require more broadband and more access by more people, and so the need to have investments in broadband provision continues to grow. this is not a mature industry. this is not a railroad from the 19th century where all the rail track are layne and the question is how much people should be called to use them. this is a highly dynamic industry with a lot of known vacation left to be done. >> host: your surprised by tom wheeler's decision to put net neutrality rules into effect? >> guest: i think he had said earlier that he was looking for ways to ensure basic concepts of

net neutrality which aberdeen agrees with no discrimination based on content. everyone agrees with that. there were also no cases of that happening. a broadband provider, if it discriminated against a particular kind of content would find consumers getting their broadband somewhere else so they were under competitive pressures in that regard. i think president obama lobbied very hard for the most extreme form of regulation, title ii regulation, again, treating them like the internet, as if it were a 19th century railroad or ma bell monopoly of the 20th century and tom wheeler in an e-mail to his own staff that was uncovered bay congressional committee indicated he felt pressure by the president and by this pressure to adopt most extreme

form or regulation, but tom wheeler is a student of history and i'm sure is aware of the history of regulatory agencies and what happened to innovation and at every opportunity he says there won't be regulations. this is not about regulation. but the rules that the three democrats among the five fcc commissioners voted for require the fcc to consider rate complaints and other complaints. so i was surprised that tom wheeler wasn't able to find a less intrusive way to accomplish what everybody agrees are strong open internet principles. there was a page one report in "the wall street journal" that went in great depth on the political pressure from the white house on the fcc, which is after all, supposed to be an independent regulatory agency, and i believe that reporting in

"the wall street journal" is quite sound. >> host: that was the story on the front page of the "wall street journal." gordon crovitz one of your favorite targets in your columns iseye can and -- what's your take on the administration of the internet. >> guest: let's step back a little bit. this is part of the same theme of the internet being an extraordinarily innovation and one that has been largely self-regulated. what happened in the 1990s when the internet first became open for commercial use it had previously been for academic scientist, the military during the clinton administration. its was opened up for commercial use, and the issue arose who is going to keep -- to ensure the integrity of the underlying plumbing of the internet?

if somebody guess to c-span.org, how will they be sure they end aunt c-span and not somewhere else. and there was a strong view that the internet should reflect american values of free speech and open access and innovation. at that time, the 1990s the contract to oversee the plumbing of the internet was handled by, and continues to me handled by, the u.s. commerce department. in that way the u.s. is a backstop. it protect this ultimate protecter of the open internet. other countries have resented the role of the u.s. from the very beginning. china, russia, iran, and others. have argued it's unfair. that the u.s. government has the

ultimate control over the underlying' plumbing of the internet and they've been lobbying for years to try to move that protection away and to give regulatory oversight to the u.n. or another agency. the reason that they've been unable to censor the global internet -- they can cent sore theber net in their one countries as of course china and russia do. they devote enormous resources to censoring the internet but ron they have never been able to censor the internet outside their own country is because of the up mat u.s. control -- the ultimate u.s. control over internet addresses and numbers-it's killed. names and addresses the obama administration announced it planned to give up u.s. protection for the internet, ending the commerce department contract with icann the group

that handles that aspect of the plumbing of the internet. and when that happened there was a lot of opposition to it. president clinton said that there war a lot of countries in the world that have long wanted control over the internet, and that the u.s. had done a great service by keeping the internet free. congress, through budgeting laws has postponed the handing off of the contract by the commerce department to any other group or to icann as an independent group. run republics largely some democrats as well, skeptical that we can have a protected internet without ultimate protection by the u.s. government. one of the challenges is if it's not going to be overseen by the u.s. government, who is going to

oversee it? will it be a series of other governments? the obama administration has said no, it should be done some other way. but the international community the multistakeholder community around the internet, has been trying very hard to find some other way to make sure that icann is conditionable and also keep it out of the hands of other government, and so far it's been very difficult to find any other way to protect the internet other than the system that's currently in place where the u.s. government has ultimate protection for the open internet. so, i think people around the world who value the free speech culture of the internet, a lot of us would say if the internet ain't broke don't try to fix it. >> host: the significance of which hady retiring and leaving

icann early is that important? sunny think it is. the obama administration was counseling on icann running itself. i don't think that the administration really fully thought through exactly how icann could beheld accountable. doesn't have it oats plan to do that in the absence of ultimate u.s. control. he is the head of icann and announced he was going to step down prematurely from the position. it's another wrinkle but it's not the key issue. the key issue is really how do we protect the integrity of the internet make sure the countries that spend enormous resources trying to censor the internet in their countries are not able to censor the internet in the u.s. or outside of their own countries. how can that be done without

ultimate u.s. government control, and it's now been a very long time since the obama administration asked for ideas how that can be done and so far there are no proposals that would ensure the integrity of the internet we have enjoyed since then 1990s. >> host: when it comes to issues affecting the internet and technology what do you think the impact of edward snowden has been? >> guest: i think people who followed the national security agency closely probably were not terribly surprised by the disclosures that snowden made. i think in retrospect it probably would have been wiser for the nsa and the executive branch of government generally to have disclosed more about how it operated so that it would not have been quite such a shock when people saw exactly how it

did operate. on the other hand, many of the claims that yesterday ward snowden made and early media coverage, that was really quite misleading and not a accurate representation of what actually goes on. this all does go back to the fourth amendment of our constitution reasonable searches and seasures, and over the years that's been interpret different ways but essentially it says the government does have the ability, should have the ability, to make reasonable searches in order to prevent crime or prevent terrorist activities. the nsa of course, is involved with activities outside of the u.s., where for many years there was not even a concept of that fourth amendment principle applied.

really the question is in a digital era an information age what is the balance between people's privacy and national security? are there ways where the nsa can use anonymous information not personalized information in order to identify and prevent terror acts, for example. and to do that in a way that leaves americans feeling-a-their privacy interests are still protected. some of the reporting early on was really quite inaccurate. people got the wrong impression that the government was eavesdropping on everybody's telephone calls and that sort of thing and that's really not the case. the issue before us now i think, is groups like isis and other are quite adept at using technology as isis looks for recruits that may use facebook or twitter but quickly tells

its recruits to go on to systems where there's no possibility of the nsa or other agencies having access to the communications, going dark, as it's called. and that's now quite easy for people to do. this is a new era. we don't know the ultimate consequences of law enforcement and intelligence agencies no longer having access to that kind of information but it's a real issue and there are really dangers involved and tradeoffs that are being made, whether or not we have really had an open debate whether those are the right tradeoffs and many of my columns try to encourage people to think about these issues and to at least acknowledge that there are tradeoffs involved. >> host: do you think our electronic communication should

fall under the fourth amendment? >> guest: i think from the very beginning of electronic communications, going back to the communications act itself, the 1934 communications act which set up the fcc, for example, identified national defense as among the prime purposes of the law. so there's nothing new about the issues around national security and communications. what is new is the ability for criminals and potential pro-terrorists to use encryption to go dark to make it difficult perhaps impossible, for law enforcement who are national security agencies to identify plots before their carried out or crimes after they're carried out. that's very new. the head of the fbi has given

speeches pointing out that this is a -- something quite new after decades of courts being able to issue warrant for telephonic communication eavesdropping under court order or identifying records under court order that even when there is a court order now companies like apple and google and others are not able to comply with court orders because of the encryption that they're increasingly make the default on cell phones, for example. so it was the very early days of understanding what the consequences of this may be, but it's a quite new circumstance for law enforcement and for national security agencies. >> host: in your bioon "the wall

street journal" ones it says you're an angel investor. what does that mean. >> guest: so after many years at "the wall street journal," after being publisher of "the wall street journal," i became extremely interested in how business models or news and funding of news had been disrupted, largely by the internet. of course, eenormous opportunity for new ways to publish and for all of to us communicate without the old gatekeepers of old media. on the other hand there are certain kinds of journalism that -- it's becoming more and more difficult to fund coverage of local governments of investigative journalism generally, and so i do some investing now in early stage companies, startup companies

who are trying to solve some of these problems around how to fund journalism so that we don't lose some forms of journalism even as the internet makes so many other forms possible. >> host: has the internet vulcanized our journalism? >> guest: i think it has vulcanizeddizes our journalism to some degree. on the other hand it's given people enormous new choices. i don't think anybody wants to go back to the days of three network broadcast tv operations. being such a gatekeeper for so much of the news. that was not an ideal arrangement. people now can start their own blog people can use twitter to identify stories they think are of interest. so many ways now to practice

journalism. i think in some regardses this is a golden age for journalism. on the other hand, for some quite valuable forms of journalism particularly i would say investigative journalism, journalism that requires institutions that occasionally have to stand up to governments around the world that have to invest in journalistic enterprise and reporting and reporting tools. that's kind of journalism that is finding less and less funding. so much of journalism was supported by advertising revenue. particularly newspapers and magazines. and as advertisers have found other ways to reach their audiences, advertising revenues have come down quite a lot dramatically and there's a search now for new business models to fund that kind of journalism and i spend quite a bit of my time with companies

trying to address that problem. >> host: gordon crovitz is the information age columnist for "the wall street journal," former publisher there, thank you for being on "the communicators." >> thank you very much. ohio governor john kashich will join the g.o.p. presidential field when he announces his candidacy tomorrow. it's happening at his mall matter ohio state university in advance he rae leased a five-minute video. here's part of it. >> what are we going to do about america? how do we end up with 20 people running for president? i think about who is it that has the experience to balance the

federal budget. very hard to do. who is it that has had the experience in turning a major state from big deficits and high unemployment to prosperity? who is it that has spent time, actual time, working on the national security issues? of all those people running there's not one that has experience in all those critical three areas. >> who needs one more person running for president? we do. >> part of a video giving the reasons john kashich says he should be president. our live coverage of the announcement of his candidacy is live on c-span3 at 11:00 a.m. eastern. [cheering] >> republican presidential candidate jeb bush outlined his priorities. this is the first of a series of policy addresses the former

florida governor plans to give on his domestic agenda. at florida state university at tallahassee. this poise minutes. >> thank you all very much for coming. on a beautiful florida morning. i get to travel around all these place. last week i was in las vegas and they always talk about dry heat like it's some really cool thing when it's 110 degrees. i kind of like humidity myself, being from florida and it's good to be back in tallahassee to see so many friends. where is ed burr? thought he was here. the chairman hoff the board of trustees i saw allen benz. thank you allen. got a chance to see your great president, president nasher, who is back there. [applause]

>> it's good to be here. i'm really excited to be with my friends. we're in the early days of a long campaign, and i'm making my case to the voters across the country and having a blast doing it by the way. it is with such joy i get to come came pan for the presidency of the ute the greatest country on the face of the earth. [applause] >> people are ready to choose a new president. month republicans they got a lot of choices to choose from. they want to know the voters do, what we believe but also what we have accomplished. for me that story begins right near tallahassee in my eight years in office we didn't just mark time. we filled the you'res with hard work and real reform. it wasn't always the smooth path. in fact, we used to call this city mount tallahassee because it was remote from the people, caught up in the settled way 0 a comfortable establishment. i was a governor would refused

to go along with the establishment. i wasn't a member of the club and that made all the difference. shy win this election, you won't find me deferring to the ways of mt. washington. the overspending, the overreaching this arrogance the sheer incompetence of the city, are sometimes -- they're treated as though it's a fact of life. but a president should never accept that, and i will not. we need a president willing to challenge the whole culture in our nation's capital and i mean to do it. name any excess or abuse in the federal government, and these past six years it's gotten worse. the rush to take over health care when they can't even put up a lousy web site to go along with it. and cannot even keep the basic commit. s like caring for veterans at the va. veterans died while waiting for care at the va hospital last year. only two people were fired for

lying about the wait times. who -- two people. we trust veterans, we trusted them to fight for us. we should trust them to be able to choose their own doctor, and reforming va will be a high priority. [applause] the partisan abuses of the irs and the coverup that followed, all of which to this day have gone unpunished. and then there's the wholesale loss of personnel records and security information the cyberhackers in china because the political hacks in charge of opm ignored official warnings. you remember the inspection 'er general reports? there was one for opm and it said we have lax security challenges here that we'll have security breaches. it had already happened by the time that report has taken place, and today we now know

that 22 million people war faked and that the information taken included inintrusive questionnaires used to vet people for security cleanses. those are 100 pages long with out sorts or information treasure trove of information for a country seeking to gain an advantage over our country. what does it say then, with all the resources the federal government haven't, they can't even protect vital data from a hostile actor. rarely has incompetence sadr such a price. inepttyitude of this order is enough to sound the alarm but when it comes at the the northern he can when there's no accountability and few even expect it anymore that is when we really need to worry. it's come to the point with the current administration and the entire washington establishment that it so perfectly represents that it's kind of like alfred e. newman what, me worry?

always someone else's fault 'we have challenge that more and more people don't believe their government work for them. i believe it and can i will take the skill is learned with many of you in this room to make it so. don't get me wrong i have not so fond memories but memories during my time in government here when it wasn't perfect. but that is part of being a leader, is to accept responsibility when things go wrong. after the 2000 presidential election recount we moved decisively to improve our election laws and made our voting system the envy of the nation. when the tragedy of wilson took place and exposed the shortcomings or or child way fair system, working with the florida legislature we stepped up our commitment to community based care and made the system much more responsive to children in need. and when senior people in my administration violated the public trust they were removed from their jobs.

when these problems occurred i took responsibility. that is what floridians deserve and that's the cupid of leadership that has been lacking in washington and the kind of leadership i will bring to washington, dc. [applause] >> for anyone who wants to see the federal government even bigger and even further removed from this it's supposed to serve, the other party will be offering that option. as for me, i'm offering a different agenda all together. it will be my intention not to preside over the establishment but in every way i know to disrupt that establishment and make it more accountable for the people. [applause] the ultimate disruption is to reject as i do, the whole idea that government forever

growing more, borrowing more, and spending more, beyond anybody's able to control it or comprehend it, is not the right way to go. i have no illusion about what reform really takes. the next president of the united states has to confront the spending culture in washington, and i promise you i will do it. [applause] >> i think we have learned by now that you can have a fast-growing economy or you can have a fast-expanding government. but you can't have both. you have to choose. as i did. when we worked together when i was governor of the now third largest state. in my time of office, florida's economy expanded by 4.4% for a year. more than 50% more than the national average. at the same time, government spending as a percentage of our state's economy went down. in fact, that should be the aspirational goal for the united

states of america and its federal budget. economic growth, growing far faster than the size and scope of washington and its budget. we balanced our budget every year i was in office. and increase our state reside reserves by $8 billion. who knows maybe there was going to be -- who know us if there was going to be a calamity of economic proportions or perhaps we'll have -- occasionally we have hurricanes here. to be able to reserve for a rainy day seemed to make sense at the time, and we were rewarded for doing so by being upgraded to triple-a bond rating and you charity to the senior state of affairs today where our great country's federal government has had a downgrade. the first one in its history. i vetoed more than 2500 spending items totaling $2 billion that wasn't punitive. i it was a process to -- in fact i think the speakers might agree i was an equal opportunity vetoer. didn't pick out democrat line items or reward my friends or

anything. this was to create a process so we could have $9 billion of reserve, we could have a government that didn't grow faster than people's income in the state. it was a process based on conservative principles and we need the exact same thing in washington. we should have the idea of veto corleone i got to like it a lot, we need bring that to d.c. i cut the state's bureaucracy by more than 10% trying to live up my promise to make building around tallahassee silent mon. s to the time when government played a larger role than it deserved or could adequately fill. and i still believe that. a self-governing society doesn't need the kind of government that we need, and if we reform how government works and build capacity for people to achieve 'discuss by our very nature we

will all become conservatives bass the don't mad on government will subside. from the very outset as president i would signal a new direction by supporting fundamental reforms that go to the heart of the problem. first, we have to confront and end the habitual practice of deficit spending. as long as deficits are an option deficits will be the reality. the remedy i will support if president as a balanced budget amendment to be clear -- [applause] -- to be clear it had to be properly designed so that it's a tool too limit government, not to raise taxes. americans in every party are right to be worried about the fiscal integrity good solvency of our government. it needs to be fixed. i will urge congress to submit a balanced bug amendment to the state and let the people decide. second it is time to revise

veto corleone. the president should be able to eliminate wastel spending threw line-item veto, such as the version that paul ryan has recommended to make sure i it abides by our constitution. overspending is a problem where the president has to assert a national interest, even if no one else will. the power to veto irresponsible suspension part of the duty, and i know how to use it. trust me. >> the third spending freeway is government procurement. federal agencies spend billions and billions of dollars every month on equipment and services following complicated procedures that no company would use in a competitive environment. the process is slow, and too often it holds no one accountable for being overbug or behind schedule. one of the most tragic examples i've seen on the road is the

hospital the va hospital that has been many years in the making that was supposed to cost $200 million, and now i think the last estimate for its completion in denver, colorado, is $1.8 billion you. can't make that ump it's hard to imagine how incompetent and complicated a process would be to yield that result. military procurement is just one of many years where our system and processes are failing. the defense department is still operating by the procurement methods of the cold war. in some cases by the time new equipment reaches our troops, it's almost obsolete. so here we are with the pentagon that has to cut military equipment, pay and healthcare, all the while losing billions in backward wasteful procurement processes. the pentagon's acquisition system is so swamped with regulation only a hapful of contractors can compete. that's why i support initiatives

by the charm -- by john mccain -- a real hero, by the way,. [applause] >> senator mccain and max thornwerery in the house to reform the defense procourage process to make it more transparent, more flexible, and more competitive. competition reduces costs and ensures our tropes have quality equipment that keeps them safe. it's not too much to ask for the people who defend our country that we eliminate waste so we can invest in them. these problems not unique to the military. the processes and procedures used to purchase information technology are frog with cost overruns delays and outright failures of to the past five years the united states government accounting office has made more than 700

recommendations for reforming the system of procurement in washington. only 23% of them have been fully implemented. we can apply these same principles that we used to fix defense acquisitions to address to the procurement failures oz washington on the civilian side as well. this is something that requires leadership. not just filing an amendment and calling it success as some in the senate do but actually having the leadership skills to take an idea, put it into reality to make sure there's accountability around and is to go from beginning to end to make sure we transform how our government works. [applause] >> i just got applauded by ben watkins, who deserves a lot of credit. this is one state that has reduced its debt burden in a way that the rest of the country should follow, and ben you have done a great job doing that, along with governor scott. [applause]

>> i do that because he is a great public servant and is really embare rayed right now. we need to deal with real numbers the trick in d.c. now is called baseline budgeting. it means that the current year level of spending this starting point for future spending. baseli kitchen budget, looks like this, rice? baseline in washington is like this this. it's almostly degrees until something happens. the minute you suggest you curb growth you're an evil person. that hole system is desteined for making government grow at a rate that is far more than our able to pay for it. we no longer can afford using that as the assumption, and'll work with congress change it. you have a problem when standard accounting principles seem like a subversive idea, experts how it is with federal government. it's a rigged system.

meanwhile, all the taxpayers who underrite the spending have to live in the read world you. start with a zero, define priorities and observe boundaries. it's not as fun as working with make believe numbers. i got that. but it can get you out of trouble. real world budgeting would mark a big step toward national solvency, and in my administration it it will be the rule rather than the exception. [applause] >> this may -- you may remember some of this that is coming up. when a given agency asked for more budget authority they should be required to support with detailed justifications why they need and it also to propose offsetting cuts. the short of it is, we're going to turn off the automatic switch of discretionary spending increases and weigh budgets only on merits. too much in the federal government runs on automatic which usually means things are happening with no one stopping

to ask why. we see this in the way the civil service system operates. people are hired promoted, they're given pay increases often without regard to performance. more than ever, it's a system in the old ways. ruled by inertia and uncan't accountable to the people, and with over two million government employees on the federal payroll, these programs and these problems carry a heavy cost. and a few serious reforms will go a long way mitchell first retomorrow will be to place a freeze on federal hiring. we can expect that more than ten percent of the current work force will retire in the next five years it's a fairly safe bet that not everyone who leaves needs to be replaced. we will go with a simple three out, one in rule, across the federal work force with the exceptions for critical positions related to our security and to our safety. only one new hire for every

three who leave. this policy can on its own reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy by 10% over five years. with other reforms which are more than possible as well, we could reduce the bureaucracy by more than 10% within four years. my first term as president of the united states. saving tens of billions of dollars without adding to unemployment. we made those tough cuts in florida, and under our reforms we also made top level management more accountable by defining them as at-will employees we ensured that employees ate every level could be let go if they weren't doing a good job. the folk was up to everybody's game. attract new talent and to remind public employees that they're there to serve. whether it's the -- whether it's the companies employees or a government work force the whole idea of management is to reward good performance and make the best the standard. and that is not the system we have in washington, dc right now. much of what we have is a relic

of then 1970s during the carter administration. let's just say they didn't have the taxpayers' interests foremost in mind. it's not a partisan issue. we have structural deficits we have to address. it doesn't matter what the -- who is the cause of all this. it's time to reform all of these things to make government smaller so we can rise up as a nation again. the system -- [applause] the system they have left us rewards longevity instead of performance. many federal employees are paid far morn their private sector counterparts. compared to private certainer employees, federal employees earn a little over $1,500 more per year in wages and nearly 16 happy to a year in benefits. there are a lot of exemplary employees in the federal government it but they're treat node better than the bad ones and the bad ones are almost

impossible to effectively discipline torii move. job security is one thing. job entitlement is another. every time a federal employee needs to be moved along it shouldn't be a federal case. the system is so broken that in 2013 the number of federal employees terminated for cause actually fell to .18%. one-fifth of one percent. so i'll put in motion long overdue reform. federal lowows should retain civil rights and whistle blow appropriation it' the time it takes to remove an unproductive employee should be measured in reeks rather than years. just like in the real world compensation should depend on the type of work and quality of the work. if the aim is to bring out the best in public sir vans and improve morale across the federal work force we have to get incentives right. no more dolling out race raises

across the board. i promise you we'll see loot more ex-lens in the ranks of the civil service and we'll attract new talent as well. i will also propose along with merit pay enhanced financial instance senttives for managers whose skill and careful planning actually reduces spending. when federal employees are found squandering public money we should call them out and when they find ways to save money see, reward them. in florida you know the davis productivity award great mod toll bring to washington dc to reward people that are focusing on shrinking government. of course, the surest way to protect the taxpayers' money is not to take so much in the first place. the best way to keep government accountable is to limit its power to regulate our economy and our lives and in the coming months i will be set forth my plans for tax and regulatory

reform on a scale we haven't seen since the reagan years and i will be outlining my ideas to reform the major entitlement programs and provide a replacement for obamacare. not to keep you in suspense -- [applause] -- not could teen you in suspense but the octobertive in both cases is to bring government back within the consent of the governed so it truly serves the national interest instead of catering to special interests. [applause] after all it's the relentless expansion of government that made lobbying washington's premiere growth industry. spending on lobbying has risen by more than 45% in the past decade translating to can -- get this -- $12.5 million per member of congress at last count. yes. exactly. restrained federal spending and

the burke creak meddling and we'll disrupt the culture that thrives on big go. i know how that culture work. i saw it here in tallahassee. over time lobbyists and legislators grew too comfortable in each other's company, cutting deals that didn't have anything to do with the public interest. so along with the other change wes made the florida legislature passed a lie i signed into law that created the strictest lobbying reforms in the the country and i was proud to sign that into law and the system is significantly better after that law was passed. even before i took office i signaled a new way of doing business by forbidding lobbying by any member of my transition team. we ended the practice of lawmakers accepting gifts from almost loppy i.s.es. the reforms require lobbyists to disclose information about their clients clients and compensation. the lobbyists were a little grumpy but now it's actually turned into a competitive deal. where they show that it have

more business, i think in and they're proud of the fact they have a thriving business, interesting how marks work. in that spirit, we need reform disclosure laws in washington as well. here's what i propose. every time a lobbyist meets with any member of congress, that should be reported online, every week. on the members' official web site. that should include by way the ambiguous class of consultants who lobby but call it something else the definition of the term lobbyist should be expanded to address the cadre of government relations and government affairs specialists now populating the capital as well. then there's the pattern of so many outgoing members of congress who quickly become lobbyists themselves, as if merely moving on to business end of the same enterprise. we need to help politicians to rediscover life outside of washington, dc, which who knows, might be a pleasant surprise for them. the agree majority of the people

that serve in these positions do it with great talent and they die it with integrity and can make a huge contribution to the communities in which they were serving, and i believe they should be doing that rather than translating this and staying in washington ask trying to translate their experience into high gain. if i'm eye selected president i will use all my influence to enact into law an immediate six-cross-are ban on lobbying, a full senate term for ex-members of the house and the united states senate. [applause] and we'll take similar measures at the white house. i will strengthen existing prohibitions that prevent departing executive branch employees from lobbying member of my administration in all of these reforms it matters what example is set by those in elect office. it's easy for elected officials to lay out standards of performance for others. but what are the high standards

worth if they're not applied to themselves? consider a pattern in congress of members who sometimes seem to regard attendance and voting as optional. something to do as time permits. the reality is that congress is in session for typically three days a week. when they're up there. so it's not asking too much that every member be there and work on those days. and if it's an incentive they need how about the one that pretty much every worker in america has in their job you don't show up, you don't get paid for the time that you missed. [applause] >> a bill to dock pay of absentee members might not pass the house or senate. i don't know. maybe it could. but at least it would get them there for a vote. [laughter] >> if we can't always gift them on the job let's at least get

them on the record. if i've learn anything as governor of florida it was never to take time for granted. i even kept on my desk where i always could see it's digital clock counting down the time left in my term to the last hour. i might just bring that clock along, into i have the honor as serving the 1,461 days of the next presidential term. [applause] our leaders can be so imamericad in coming campaigns as to lose sight of the present challenges and work needed to be done right now...

>> we should make everything that we can to make it happen. all of this is part of the things that we should make across the state. and of course in our country. speaking to every voter of every background here is what i believe and here's what i know. for all of us the coming years can be and will be the best time ever to be alive in this country of ours. i'm ready for the challenge. [cheers] [laughter] >> i'm ready for the challenge and i'm asking for your vote and

i'm asked for your help. god bless you all, it's great to be back in. >> c-span is partnering for the august 3 voters forum. all 17 have been in invited. if live on c-span and c-span.org and the father of a woman who authorities say was killed by an undocumented immigrant in san francisco is where the test by on capitol hill tomorrow morning. the senate judiciary committee has called it as part of a review as part of think shourie cities which include cities that do not obey requests from immigration and customs enforcement to hold inmates by beyond their detention dates. some lawmakers say that this allows lawmakers to go see these

immigrants commit crimes. we will have live coverage on c-span. >> dave leventhal is with us. we just got a look at where the presidential candidates stand and the all-important money chase. who are the candidates they came off looking the strongest in this first peek. >> not surprisingly jeb bush and hillary clinton are in a great position of strength. although there is a caviar. hillary clinton led all candidates when it came to the amount of money that her own campaign pulled in. but jeb bush, even though these numbers are unofficial he was able to take an incredible amount of money through a support of super pacs including outside organizations that are run by supporters and friends and collectively between the campaign and the outside group

took in more than $100 million in this early juncture almost 500 days away from election day. i'm of the other candidate who are in this race put up some decent numbers in their own right. the campaigns taking in millions of dollars, people like rand paul, ted cruz, relatively decent second quarters as they come in and entered the race in the past couple of months. when it comes down to it hillary and jeb bush the two of them are doing really well for themselves and again that it's not terribly surprising given their name recognition, the strength of the campaign organizations if they had coming into the race and the notoriety that comes with being who they are, that will instantaneously attract money and it did just that. >> as you mentioned the super pac, 103 million-dollar raise compared to just 13.64 million a support of hillary clinton but her campaign committee raises

$63 million, i'm sorry $47 million compared to just 10 or $11 million for jeb bush. what is important to look at in terms of the strength of the campaign the super pac money that is raised with the individual campaign committee money raised in that. >> they are different kinds of money, you might think that you just are at all and a big pot enough the money that a candidate had set his or her her disposal. but it's a little bit more complicated than that. when a candidate raises for his or her committee that's my they can use instantly and that they can use directly. so if i am hillary clinton or jeb bush or any other candidate i can say we are going to spend a million dollars on television ads or pencils and people paperclips pretty much anything that they want to do they have the ability to do, yet they can only raise limited amounts of that kind of money in increments of $2700. if you want to donate to my

campaign, the best you can do during this reason is $2700. the super pacs are a different story, they can raise unlimited amounts of money there's no cap on how much money they can raise. if the donor wants to give a million dollars or $10 million to a super pac that in turn is going to support one of those candidates who the donor likes, they can go ahead and do it. these are the people like various other big-name donors who are likely going to play the super pac game in 2016. the limiting factor is that the super pacs are not directly controlled by the candidates. yes, they are controlled by close friends and his surrogates there's an intimate relationship between super pacs and 2016 and the candidate committees and 2016. but they are is in direct command and control. super pacs do a lot of television advertising. in the past that has been their hallmark and some of the biggest expenditures, many of the big

ones that have been made. candidate committees when they buy television ads or mass messaging like that, they can often get lowest rates from the tv stations and the networks that they are putting those ads on. super pacs a a lot less efficient because they can get charged an arm and a leg to put those ads on television. a million dollar donation to a super pac might not go quite as far as donations in smaller increments to candidate committees. it may seem like a technical thing but it's been a very important consideration particularly for races where we have 20 semi-legitimate candidates floating around democrats and republicans. >> mohammod youssuf abdulazeez arkestra the next 40 minutes or so. we are taking your calls, lines for democrats and independents and republicans are on your screen. you can call in now. we are talking about the biggest winners that have the biggest campaign-finance cycles. >> we had a couple that put up

lousy numbers mike huckabee is somebody who could be pretty high in the polls among right up there on the republican side and jeb bush is oftentimes number three and number four. he is someone who in 2008 had great success winning primaries and caucuses and hopes to make another kind of splash like that eight years on, but he put on some and someone like this his 2012 presidential campaign still has more debt more than his 2016 campaign had cash on hand and we are talking less than $500,000 and each gave and though although you have some of these candidates who are trying to pick a name for themselves it's

going to be very difficult to do that when you have a limited amount of money. $500,000 or a million dollars $2 million it might seem like a lot of money to a lot of people. but let's take a look at it nationally. you're running a campaign in all 50 states if you want to win. you have "fast and furious" february and march, you have to play conceivably and many of the states you have to do this if you don't have the resources. buy television ads do all the different things and even travel around that candidates need to do during that primary season. it's very difficult to compete against those that have difficult resources. >> what was the amount spent during the obama and romney campaigns in 2012 two. >> overall in 2012 when you consider the primary and the general, more than a billion dollars for each candidate and we fully expect that the nominee

for both republican and democratic parties in 2016 are easily going to match that are probably exceeded when you factor in not only are candidate spending but also the stunning by super pacs and nonprofit organizations outside organizations or nominally outside organizations that are going to be incredibly supportive to the candidates that they support and is it to the candidates they expose i'm sorry, oppose. >> okay, good morning, we have kerry in michigan. >> caller: hello. i was wondering about them trying to get their programs through congress, but it didn't matter because i'm the man i've got the pen is a taxpaying law abiding citizen, i'm wondering if that was an impeachable statement or not? in your opinion?

>> not really in the realm of campaign finance. >> i really cannot speak to the caller's question but i can at least say that congress is going to be a bit of a different situation and 2016 in the end that they have their own battles that they're going to be fighting and we have seen so much money going into the presidential race. there's plenty of activity happening for the house and senate in the sense that they are competing for cash as well. oftentimes you get these very hysterical messages from both the democrats and the republicans who are trying to raise money almost as if they are saying do you remember us? we are trying to compete in 2016 as well. the presidential race is picking up oxygen at this early stage and expect that to continue even more so than we saw in 2012. >> jessica is waiting on line for democrats. good morning. >> good morning and thank you for taking my call.

in light of all the millions and billions being spent on the 2006 election it is only taking public donations and union donations and i think that's very important to point out when we have so much money in elections and i think that that is an important point to point out and i just wanted to say that this morning. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> they buried their strong numbers easily exceeding the the amount that martin o'malley raised.

relative to the other candidates on the democratic side and donating it directly to the campaign in the sense that bernie sanders is almost unique in the sense of the money that he raised was not coming from big dollar sources and you're limited on how much money you can get directly to the campaign, but bernie sanders has been wildly successful in raising money from small dollar donors and those that are giving $200 or less and it might be the mom and pop operation or somebody who just has a couple of pennies to scrape together at about two thirds for bertie sanders, about three fourths of the money that he raised in the last quarter came from these types of small dollar donors and

sources. and the kind of money that is coming from people who are noting that about two thirds also came from those same types of sources and we have a couple of candidates in the field who are not getting the look of their money from the big dollar sources that are getting the money from the small dollar sources. >> what is considered the best combination of small dollar donors and big dollar donors. >> all the candidates want to raise as much money as they possibly can to run their operations. and there's a certain quality that comes with those who are making a donation of any amount whether it's $5, $500, or $5 million. it is someone invests even a tiny amount of money into a

political campaign in a way it is a guarantee that you're going to have their support and their very energetic supporter. if you make a donation and you take the time and you go through the trouble of putting in your credit card, sitting in a check, you're probably going to be much more willing to make phone calls or that candidate probably be more willing to talk to your friends about that candidate and volunteer for that candidate and you're certainly on your twitter feed are going to promote that candidate. so in a way it is a sign that you have people investing in your campaign if you have a lot of those small dollar donations. it goes beyond sheer dollars and cents but something greater and broader and tantamount to momentum or a movement. that is what bernie sanders is hoping for in this kind of thing. the big question for bernie sanders is if it's going to be enough with hillary clinton oral name that mission or momentum

and resources. we saw in 2012 and example. we had such energetic support and so many people giving the a's small dollar donations. it just wasn't enough to compete with what mitt romney had. is that going to happen again in 2016 just on the democratic side? but it is a semi-decent parallel >> will is on the line for republicans. good morning. >> thank you. >> i wanted to make a point and then ask for some examples from your gasps. i have been watching the attempt to control political campaign donations and they have created

this where the parties are limited and they have been greatly diminished in presidential campaigns and every candidate has to play the money game at the beginning and we end up with anomalies like the candidate and spend money but they cannot coordinate they cannot put out a unified message and it has resulted in a bunch of absolute nonsense. mitt romney didn't have enough money to counter the capital

adds. so i wonder if i could have a comment on that and perhaps point out more of the ridiculous absurdities of the attempt to control campaign finance spending. >> i can tell you that we were drawing up the perfect system if we were starting from scratch and trying to form the way that campaigns were funded and operated in the country today would we drop the system that we have right now? and almost universally regardless of the political persuasion and say and what it is the system right now and we

have talked about this history and we had little bits and pieces taken out and this includes those that had been given the ability to have certain types of nonprofits to engage in elections in ways that they haven't really done before especially with super pacs and what they have the potential to do. organizations have fewer resources than other organizations who are not directly run by the campaign itself and they have a very good

point about parties. a lot of folks, the democratic national committee, various other national parties, they were not come in a perfect world they too do not have the same power that these other parties do the super super pacs and nonprofits. they are limited in the amount of donations that they can have. they play second fiddle to be organizations out there that do have the ability to raise unlimited money. >> you have 20 different candidates effectively 20 different individuals that are supporting those candidates that

is before he became a candidate and before he was involved in creating. he became a candidate and said that i am going to break apart from the super pac and run my own campaign but it will be run by mike murphy and a couple of other people who are very close friends of mine and it's the second best thing to running it yourself it would be as if you couldn't run your own sports team as a kid that you had your brother do it. it's about as close as you can get to running a campaign operation. hillary clinton had the ready for hillary super pac that existed to support her prior to her becoming a candidate and you

can see how confusing this is. you could have an example for every candidate at late in the game when you're going through the legal things, jumping through what seemed to be a trapeze act of legal maneuvering is. and it was very fuzzy and was in a bit of a new campaign world where many of these types of exotic political organizations are just not tested. >> we have jeff and in kentucky waiting. you're on with dave levinthal. >> hello. it seems to me like the super pacs -- we have these all over

before we even have the main one. so why don't we just have a one-day primary and whoever gets it gets it instead of buying a candidate three months down the road. can you answer that for me to . >> it's a really critical factor that a lot of people don't talk about. and i think that the frustration in part stems from that and that these campaign seasons seem to last forever and that they never stop and that in the way it is absurd that we are even having these conversations right now. and even a year out it would seem a little bit odd. now presidential campaigns being a nationwide affair take time but there have been some folks i have talked to and had discussions with about this notion not so much of money and

time. and they have a limited period of time of where the campaign will run. and probably not, there doesn't seem to be much appetite on capitol hill which we are looking at right now, to change the law that would limit the amount of time they candidates can raise money, for example, or ultimately run the election campaigns. it's something that probably gets talked about a little bit more today than it did before. in the sense that it seems tiring and endless. for the candidates is very tiring as well. and all you do is get up every single day and spend in some cases for some candidate hours. either at fundraisers or at the phone, dialing for dollars doing fund-raising operations

with other types of campaigning and other members of congress and they are doing their job as a member of congress and as an elected official to represent the people here in washington to do. at the very least it is an interesting thought exercise and something that, i suspect it will be talked about a little bit more of going forward and something that dave levinthal has written about. public integrity.org, check out the more recent stories including public integrity with campaign donors hedging their bet, we can talk all about it we are taking your calls for the next 20 minutes or so. mike is in south dartmouth

massachusetts. good morning. >> thank you for taking my call. i just thought that i would give you a call and talk about a comment that was made about bernie sanders. [inaudible] >> that is correct. >> caller: i really think that that is much of a point. the democrats are always funded by the unions and by individuals the democrats it's almost as if they are being bribed by the unit so they can have power. the government unions seem to be keeping democrats were socialists in power like bernie sanders and i don't think that hillary was very much part of this. >> these unions have their own campaign spending mechanisms. >> there's nothing new about

unions supporting them that's nothing new as much as it would be at any other time in recent history for bernie sanders, he has a long track record of support from various individuals getting back a little bit to this story that we had a couple of days ago, we do have examples of big dollar donors with people that are hedging their bets. and in some cases that we found they were giving to hillary clinton and jeb bush. so in a way on the other end and not talking about the candidates themselves but they want to be on a winning team and they want to make sure that they are giving money to candidates as they are trying to that they are

showing signs of support to candidates with an eye to 2016 when ultimately there is going to be one democrat and one republican running against each other and egg to election. with it being so competitive and a number of republicans likely to compete well into 2016, if you get on board early and you show support even if you are flirting with numerous candidates at once and having a bit of a local dalliance with those at the same time, that could be a smart move for some of these individuals. >> we have william in north carolina, good morning. >> there is no coordination between the candidates and the people forming these super pacs

in the campaign. thank you. >> we we don't expect it anymore. it used to be four years ago in the 2012 election, this notion of ordination that seem to be more of a right line that they said famously in an interview that i am coordinating here i could end up in the big house. and neither are any of the candidates in 2016. you can get pretty darn close to the operations of your super pacs. as a candidate you cannot director super pac to specific types of actions. by the same types as me. and that would likely be crossing the line in this

includes your supporters and friends and. >> the notion of coordination is a bit overblown. they can telegraph their intentions to the super pacs about violating any law for all intensive purposes. if they were violating a law there is an open question and a huge question mark as to whether anybody would do anything about it. we have an agency that had been set up in the aftermath of watergate to make sure that campaign finance laws were being followed.

and you know, as a result some of these very fuzzy questions these gray areas that we are talking about super pacs and coordination about whether nonprofit organizations can spend as much money as they want to on politics, whether they have to disclose who their donors are in the case of nonprofits. all of these kinds of questions are effectively being punted or the election commission cannot agree upon it. that is one agency that is likely not going to weigh in during 2016. >> we are speaking with dave levinthal. about this gridlock election that he is a washout. it's time for a few more of your

calls. now is the time. the line for democrats, good morning. >> good morning. this is a hypothetical question, if you were to add up all of the money that was spent on campaigns all the way down to state legislatures what kind of money without being. >> you know you would be talking about tens of billions of dollars. they are talking about 2012 nothing else presidential elections, easily exceeding $5 billion to the 6 billion-dollar range and up.

back in 2016, almost certainly going to well exceed that figure and that doesn't include state races or may world races. if you go back 10 years even more you can see from those couple of examples how the money is going to add up very quickly. some people will make the cases of okay, that seems like a huge number look at the big corporations that have advertising budgets and have spent millions and even billions of dollars to promote their product. and their questions are also there to debate. we have this wonderful thing called the u.s. constitution and there's the right of free speech one of the most revered aspects, you can talk about what you want to do as a candidate

you can tell the public what you think is right and what you think is wrong. i don't think you're going to get an argument from anyone they candidates don't have the right to get this message out but all right, can use unlimited amounts of money to do it? can it be incessant? can you be somebody that doesn't reveal to the public that you are funding massive campaign to supporters a pose or tear down a certain candidate and effectively operate in the shadows while you now. some of these legalistic kinds of questions and even some will consider them will stick questions as we do the most public of thing, which is sent people to washington to represent us and we are waiting on the line for republicans. enacted morning. thank you. i am curious to know who

supports financially the center for public integrity. i found two names that just jumped out at me. [inaudible] can you explain why you have such a left-wing source remapped. >> sure, i am not involved in the finance center, i'm a journalist, but we have numerous funders, some who are numerous and some who are part of this. we have an investigative news organization and we take money from any source a foundation primarily in individuals as well that want to support our work. regardless of the political persuasion to look at the work that we do. judging judge it for themselves and support it if they like it. >> where else have you worked here in washington? >> before i came to the center i

worked at politico. i started at the dallas morning news and started my time off covering new hampshire politics which is going to be all the rage between now and february when we have the first in the nation primaries. >> he is a man that knows campaign-finance inside and out. we have tenants left for your question. we have robert on the line for republicans. >> good morning, sir. >> please go ahead, you are on with dave levinthal. >> i would like to ask him what he thinks about it donald trump dropped out of the republican race and ran as an independent do you think it would go and what effect do you think that we would have on the election two. >> republicans don't know what to do it donald trump right now. some do, those are the ones that are supporting him and think

that he is sort of the ultimate anti-candidate candidate. and then these are lots of reasons why these people are supporting these candidates. a huge burial will would be that donald trump decided they would pull out of the republican primary or if he didn't win to pull a ross perot to run as an independent. who really knows what he's going to do, he's somebody that is a total ex-factor in the race right now and as a result is causing a lot of consternation running for the republican nomination and that includes the comments that he is making, many

that are very critical with military records. donald trump in this election, probably here to stay, and he can run his own campaign for sure. >> what are the restrictions for presidential race and how much money could he put in? >> he could put in as much as he wanted to from his own pocket. if he wanted to be into that, which he was in 1992 in 1996 he would have the ability to do that. and it goes back to that notion if you have a lot of evil donating to your campaign it's more than just money you can use as an investment that people are making and likely support you

and you know still when you're talking about billion-dollar campaigns here they are going to have to pony up a lot of the resources that they have in a political sense. >> good morning please go ahead and. >> hello i'm wondering how much of the actual campaign money is spent to continue illegal immigration because i guess the simple fact here in kentucky is that california has at least nine representatives that don't represent citizens and i know in texas the supreme court was going to look at the fact that the republicans were redistrict didn't so they can take advantage of those illegal

immigrants and to me, that is probably the biggest thing going on right now and you hear nothing about and what would you have to say about that. >> it is a bit difficult to want to buy how much money in the campaign, going through a specific issue or any other issue. what i know is that in the past we have seen candidates spent a good chunk of their money. messages, promotional materials, those that talk about the issue of illegal immigration and talking about super pac and outside groups some of those organizations also talking about immigration to a strong degree versus those advertisements in the context of what certain candidates have done. and that is both on the anti-part. as you have seen with other

issues as well. although i cannot give the caller a specific figure you can expect that certainly on the republican side during the primary that various candidates will be talking about this issue a great deal and probably spending at least a decent amount of money on these issues as well and it will definitely be there as well. >> we have tom in pittsburgh. good morning. >> good morning. >> when george bush became president one of the first things that he did was now we are going to have a new world order which is peace and prosperity in one nation. and that is what the democrats are doing as well not on hillary

and bush you know it is the population between 18 and 30 there's over 22% call these immigrants you know what i mean? >> okay the line for independent callers. >> we have spent millions of dollars on campaigns and we don't have any money here and it just seems like that is pretty crazy to me and i just wonder why it seems like people are always talking about immigration and that they don't want to do that. they don't want to solve it and

then you know that is the only thing. it wouldn't do any good make it so they will go to jail and that will stop the problem right there. >> when we looking for the next campaign finance numbers to come out where we are going to see a trimming of the field a little bit. >> potentially we will have a new set of numbers coming out in october for the candidates themselves for the super pacs or those supporting the candidate, that is in a matter of months. and so why are we in this in the first place. in short you have the players that are serving as as this and

neither want to give the advantage which is why it has been so it difficult to get any kind of reform or change up through capitol hill. >> dave leventhal is what the public integrity.org we want to tell you that we appreciate your time on "washington journal." >> c-span is partnering with the new hampshire union leader for the newspaper's august 3, voters forum. all 17 have been invited to participate. live on c-span and c-span.org. >> yours what is ahead on c-span2. >> a form on the impact of coastal communities held by

democrats on the committee. and later, presidential candidate jeb bush outlining his priorities for reducing government spending reforming the veterans affairs department and improving the economy. ♪ ♪ >> always to the right and almost always to the right. [inaudible] >> robert goldman and his partner talk about the 1968 debate between gore vidal over war and politics god and sex. >> you know today, i believe, there is someone saying that the numbers are dwindling.

talking about hot topic number two and i don't think that is the norm in tv at the time and that these guys are part of that. >> and he disappears for sometimes five or more minutes at a time and everybody just stood back and let the fire burn. >> on c-span's "q&a" on sunday. >> the father of a woman who authorities say was killed by an undocumented immigrant in san francisco will testify on capitol hill tomorrow morning. the senate judiciary committee has called as part of a review of century city is which are

cities that do not obey requests on patent enforcement to indefinitely hold inmates beyond the states. some say that this allows those illegal immigrants to commit crack. we will have live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> a russian on synthetic and designer drugs, including legalizing the drugs. this is one hour and a half. [inaudible] >> good afternoon. we have foreign policy studies

here at the cato institute and i want to thank you for being here. thank you especially to those of you watching online. the topic today is extremely timely, news organizations as recently as yesterday in "the washington post" has talked about the proliferation of synthetic or designer drugs that produce psychological and mind altering effects policymakers have really scrambled to outlaw substances that can regain legal status with a modest change in chemical make up. some of those masquerade as such innocuous products as air fresheners or potpourri. the question we are debating is

can these new mind altering substances be outlawed without resorting to tortured legal rationales? are there alternatives to a prohibitionist strategy or could policymakers better promote public safety by requiring strict production standards but not attempting to ban their use? in this recent analysis for those of you watching this is also available online, this new study examines the issues that we will be talking about today and i'm pleased to welcome him here his remarks will be followed by eric sterling and jacob hornberger. a few words about my friends and mentor ted. ted is a senior fellow for defense here he served as the director of foreign-policy in

1995 and is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies from 1995 through 2011. this includes the fire next door, mexico's drug violence and danger to america and bad neighbor policy and those are directly relevant to this topic more probably toward a prudent foreign policy for america. he is a contributing editor and serves on the editorial boards and is the author of more than 600 authors and policy studies and his articles have appeared in "the new york times", wall street journal los angeles times, foreign affairs, and many others. he is a frequent guest not just here in the united states but

also in europe and east asia and elsewhere. and with that i introduce you. >> thank you very much. it is certainly correct that this is a timely topic and it seems like every time you make turnarounds there is a major news article about synthetic drugs and the alleged threat to public health and safety in my study focuses on designer drugs which is a subset of artificial substances that mimic the effects of traditional mind altering drugs. they had been around for a number of decades and we are certainly familiar with the

methamphetamine phenomenon which has been around for longer than three decades. if you go back to the 1960s over the use of lsd this is not a new issue per se. but what we have seen in the past five years or so is a new family of synthetic drugs and those are the ones that i call designer drugs and there are two major categories and one synthetic marijuana often chose high the name of spies or k2 and bath salts that mimic the effects of cocaine and also

flakka is probably the best known of that category. as is indicated a lot of the designer drugs are marketed as perfectly legal substances, everything from this to pet food, most of the substances are labeled not for human consumption. let's just say that people have disregarded those warning labels with a vengeance and the increased use of designer drugs most of those are coming from production site either in mexico or suburban sites in china and then shipped over to the united states and other markets. as the levels have risen the news media stories have also surged often with headlines

about the dire threat to public health and safety. there's no question that there has been a surge of use in designer drugs. just accessing the data to emergency rooms will show that there has been a tremendous surge over the last five or six or seven years and that the drug prohibition argued that this poses an especially serious threat to children. the official of the drug enforcement administration says that the biggest population are

12 to 17-year-olds. the rationale is because these drugs until recently have had an aura of legality and that they were very easy to get and children were prone to use them. i was extremely skeptical about that argument. children and usually by that we are talking about teenagers have had very little trouble getting access to explicitly illegal substances over the years. i assure you within 15 to 30 minutes you will know who the local drug dealers are and the students know who they are and they can refer you very easily.

many of us can testify for personal experience that it was never difficult to get our hands on liquor even though theoretically we were barred from access to such dunces until the age of 21 years old. i can testify my own experience that i drank more from the ages of 15 to 21 then i have since that time. easy access argument falls apart pretty easily. what about that most users are designer drugs are 12 to 17-year-olds. well, again we don't have great data on this as of yet. but it pertinent to note that the druggies generally is a

special menace to children and a common theme of prohibitionist for decades. and yet the mental health services administration confirmed the findings of earlier surveys that the use of marijuana and other illegal drugs is predominately an adult vice. well in excess of 80% of users over the age of 18. and there is very little preliminary as it is indicated that this is different than those substances. they don't seem all that popular among teenagers to begin with.

natural marijuana is still by far their drug of choice and the university of michigan monitoring the future study in 2014 found that some 35% of high school seniors reported using marijuana during the previous year and that figure has been remarkably studied over the past two decades. it's a personal thing with me and i get annoyed every time i hear teenagers and especially those in their late teenagers described as children. high school seniors are either already adult or already 18 years old, or they are 17-year-olds on a sharp threshold of adulthood and we

want to keep that into perspective. moreover if we look at drug use among teenagers the synthetic drug issue is not all that big and figures from the 2014 unit of university of michigan study found that the use of marijuana actually declined steadily among all surveyed from 2010 and among 10th graders, reported use from the previous 12 months is the synthetic marijuana it went from 11.4% less than 6% and this is not a system with a very of an epidemic. ..